William Wright wrote:

> A lot of people commute into Sheffield via Parkway/M1/M18

Can you see your house from here?

<https://youtu.be/BawEitss2BA>

[Chap who does a quirky video about motorways evey week. Brian, he talks a lot]

On 15/12/2022 10:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>
> * Also shameful that they seem *still* to have not changed the Balancing
> Mechanism which causes the price of electric energy to be far higher than
> it need be in the UK at present.
>
The balancing mechanism is the means by which some generators are asked
to reduce their output while others elsewhere on the the network are
asked to increase generation.

I think you probably have in mind marginal pricing under which, broadly
speaking, the most expensive supply sets the price for the whole market.
That is the approach that was adopted by most electricity markets in
Europe as efficiency, transparent and a way to encourage low-cost
generation. Ed the bacon-eater was all for it to encourage renewables.

The excess profits it now gives renewables have been tackled by
Contracts for Difference for newer plant. They make generators to pay
if prices are high. But you can't impose CfD's on non-CfD plant. At
least, you can't if you intend to work within the law.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:

> The excess profits it now gives renewables have been tackled by Contracts for
> Difference for newer plant.  They make generators to pay if prices are high.
> But you can't impose CfD's on non-CfD plant. At least, you can't if you intend
> to work within the law.

If you're .gov.uk, you could if you wanted to surely? ...

On 18/12/2022 16:07, Robin wrote:
> The excess profits it now gives renewables have been tackled by
> Contracts for Difference for newer plant.

I find this terminology confusing, both because they have re-used a term
which is normally used for a mechanism for gambling on the stock
exchange, and because it looks like this is really: When is a subsidy
not a subsidy? When it is a CfD.

On 18/12/2022 16:14, Andy Burns wrote:
> Robin wrote:
>
>> The excess profits it now gives renewables have been tackled by
>> Contracts for Difference for newer plant.  They make generators to pay
>> if prices are high. But you can't impose CfD's on non-CfD plant. At
>> least, you can't if you intend to work within the law.
>
> If you're .gov.uk, you could if you wanted to surely? ...

Jim in past posts has indicated he thinks so. I think I've indicated
before that I'd like to see the legal advice that companies would not
win a legal challenge. (And for any who doubt it, I can assure you
companies /do/ have rights under the ECHR and HRA.)

What the government has pursued are changes to the market as a whole.
The Energy Prices Act 2022 (Royal Assent on 25/10/22) provided for HMG
to /offer/ CfD to existing generators and to charge generators getting
"supernormal" profits. Jim et al may think that too little too late but
it's notable that the EU struggled to revise its energy market which
similarly relied on marginal pricing.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:

> I can assure you companies /do/ have rights under the ECHR and HRA.

Companies are "Legal Persons" rather than "Natural
Persons", aren't they? So in what way are they "Human"?

In article <k03floFni9tU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:

> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001f7y1 ... and I really don't see
> > why people didn't bother to watch it before making exaggerated claims
> > for or against.

> It's not an earth-shattering programme is it? Schoolboy physics, plus
> inventions that we've all been aware of as they came along over the last
> 20-odd years, plus a clever/fanciable presenter ...

The sigificance is in the level of capability. Not the (apparent)
simplicity of the method.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tnev96$32sm4$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <tncfq5$2pspj$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
> > <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> 4kWp panel installation. 9.5kWhr battery. kWp seems to be akin to music
> power as a unit of measurement. The best I've seen so far is 3kW in the
> sunniest day, but they've only been in since October so I've yet to see
> the effect of higher sun angles.

I'd assume the 4kW is in optimum conditions, so the peak. Given that 3kW
seems reasonable for in-practice 'on occasion' I guess. No surprise that a
'capacity' value should be somewhat more than 'typical'. However for myself
I'm not thinking of solar panels soon, but having a house battery to get
(some) cheaper electric at off-peak/night and a buffer against power cuts.

> Note when the battery is supplying the house the best it can manage is
> 2.6kW, so if you have the oven and washing machine (for example) on at
> once power will be taken from the grid to make up the short fall. Once
> you have more panels than this you need a more complex process to get
> authorisation from the local electricity supplier, which may or may not
> be given. Up to this level there appears to be an assumption that the
> distribution network can cope with you sending power to it.

Again, I'm not really thinking of 'exporting' again. I would hope that any
'export' value can be set at a level of, say, 2.6kW, and this be quite
separate from being able to charge or be used in-house at higher powers.
Which would avoid the implied extra malarky above.

> Beyond that they need to make sure you don't cause over voltage
> conditions for your neighbours. I'm not convinced that solar PV panels
> are a viable way of providing heating though. You'd need a heat pump,
> and of course you have little solar power and low external temperatures
> just when heat is needed. Air source heat pumps fall to an efficiency of
> just 200% once it gets cold outside. The 400% figures quoted need it to
> be warmer outside, again another music power figure.

I'd agree. That's why at present I'm not thinking of panels or a heat pump.
One step at a time...

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5a5754fa49bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5a5721d2e5noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > That may well be. Shame the UK Gov is preferring to 'loan' us some
> > ('discounts' on paying for energy rather than deploying a serious
> > 'windfall tax' to claw back the money.*

> Oh I can of course see that argument but it will mean that private
> investors in the energy market will be reluctant to invest when they
> learn that if they make a good profit on their investment along will
> come the tax man with a new "one off" tax.

Given that they can still make good profits from planet-burning I doubt
that will cause them all to rush for the door.

That said: Maybe seeing the huge profits wind farm operaters have been
making [1] - which can be made outwith the windfall tax remit - maybe
they'd shift to that, anyway. :-)

> Bob.

[1] I continue to be amazed that the Tories haven't changed the Balancing
Mechanism for Electric. Should be an obvious way to cut the cost of
Electric. And would chime with their fossilised views to not share the high
profits with such low cost sources. But I guess they always prefer high
profits and share dividends to mere workers getting higher pay.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <k04aneFri2cU2@mid.individual.net>, William Wright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

> A better idea would be to mount windmills on the car roof. There's
> always a lot of air going past when you drive fast.

Hmmm. Maybe they could be added to Usenet as well. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <dpbophlq3k2rg5bautod8j2qalei8nsj5g@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:00:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> >Given that we'll be moving over to vehicles that use electric motors
> >and store energy in a battery it seems obvious that it makes sense to
> >also have solar panels on the surfaces. Simply because they give when
> >they can and are just part of the surface when they don't.[...]

> And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to one
> of the solar panels results in a short circuit.

Fortunately, petrol/diesel cars never catch fire in a collision....
erm....

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tnf1dv$332db$1@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 15/12/2022 10:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Interconnectors going long distances are now a routine part of of how
> > we shift energy from place to place.

> And, in Ukraine, a routine target for Russian guided weapons, not that
> ships would be much easier to defend now they can be tracked by
> satellites.

Yes. One possible advantage of HVDC cable is that it can be buried
underground. Which makes it a harder target for drone/missile attack. As
well as leaving the surface area useable for other purposes. Cost more to
install, of course.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tnev96$32sm4$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <tncfq5$2pspj$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>> 4kWp panel installation. 9.5kWhr battery. kWp seems to be akin to music
>> power as a unit of measurement. The best I've seen so far is 3kW in the
>> sunniest day, but they've only been in since October so I've yet to see
>> the effect of higher sun angles.
>
> I'd assume the 4kW is in optimum conditions, so the peak. Given that 3kW
> seems reasonable for in-practice 'on occasion' I guess. No surprise that a
> 'capacity' value should be somewhat more than 'typical'. However for myself
> I'm not thinking of solar panels soon, but having a house battery to get
> (some) cheaper electric at off-peak/night and a buffer against power cuts.
>
>
>> Note when the battery is supplying the house the best it can manage is
>> 2.6kW, so if you have the oven and washing machine (for example) on at
>> once power will be taken from the grid to make up the short fall. Once
>> you have more panels than this you need a more complex process to get
>> authorisation from the local electricity supplier, which may or may not
>> be given. Up to this level there appears to be an assumption that the
>> distribution network can cope with you sending power to it.
>
> Again, I'm not really thinking of 'exporting' again. I would hope that any
> 'export' value can be set at a level of, say, 2.6kW, and this be quite
> separate from being able to charge or be used in-house at higher powers.
> Which would avoid the implied extra malarky above.
>
>
>> Beyond that they need to make sure you don't cause over voltage
>> conditions for your neighbours. I'm not convinced that solar PV panels
>> are a viable way of providing heating though. You'd need a heat pump,
>> and of course you have little solar power and low external temperatures
>> just when heat is needed. Air source heat pumps fall to an efficiency of
>> just 200% once it gets cold outside. The 400% figures quoted need it to
>> be warmer outside, again another music power figure.
>
> I'd agree. That's why at present I'm not thinking of panels or a heat pump.
> One step at a time...
>
> Jim
>

But you mentioned replacing your boiler, hence why I went down the heat
pump route. If you want to use a battery to provide daytime electrical
heating, charged overnight, you will need a very high capacity battery and
possible strengthening of your incoming supply. Even Economy 7 night rates
are still more expensive than gas. It’s probably at least another decade
before economic alternatives to gas domestic heating appear, if then.

On 19/12/2022 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
> Robin wrote:
>
>> I can assure you companies /do/ have rights under the ECHR and HRA.
>
> Companies are "Legal Persons" rather than "Natural
> Persons", aren't they?  So in what way are they "Human"?

The text of the ECHR doesn't apply only to humans. It was drafted in
terms of "no one", "his", "person" etc. The Court has held that various
of its provisions apply to (non-governmental) legal persons as well as
natural persons.

The government might argue that the public interest test in Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 allows them to deprive generators of their rights but
it'd not be without risk of challenge and of being required to pay
compensation. Worse, it'd be a good reason for investors to walk away
and leave the UK government to fund its own capacity. In short, the
re-nationalisation which is what some people want.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 10:21:35 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <dpbophlq3k2rg5bautod8j2qalei8nsj5g@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:00:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >Given that we'll be moving over to vehicles that use electric motors
>> >and store energy in a battery it seems obvious that it makes sense to
>> >also have solar panels on the surfaces. Simply because they give when
>> >they can and are just part of the surface when they don't.[...]
>
>> And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to one
>> of the solar panels results in a short circuit.
>
>Fortunately, petrol/diesel cars never catch fire in a collision....
>erm....
>
>Jim

I think you need quite a serious collision to make a vehicle catch
fire, whereas a vehicle covered with solar panels would effectively
have electrical connections all over its surface, where a slight dent
could cause a short circuit.

Rod.

On 19/12/2022 12:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> I think you need quite a serious collision to make a vehicle catch
> fire, whereas a vehicle covered with solar panels would effectively
> have electrical connections all over its surface, where a slight dent
> could cause a short circuit.
>

Solar arrays that are short circuited don't generate a lot of electrical
power. That's why you have MPPT controllers, to limit the current to
one that doesn't drop the voltage much.

On 18/12/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> It should be no surprise that early examples of a tchnology should be
> costly and have limited performance. But as time passes, things get
> improved in performance and tend to fall in cost as their market size
> expands. This is now starting to happen.

I thought it was just a development model and not going into production.

On 18/12/2022 10:12, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Yes. One possible advantage of HVDC cable is that it can be buried
> underground. Which makes it a harder target for drone/missile attack. As
> well as leaving the surface area useable for other purposes. Cost more to
> install, of course.

I can't remember the figures but on a HV course we were told the
equivalent in tons TNT to a HV cable. There is potentially going to be
big bang!

The route of the cables are clearly marked and probably not difficult to
detect from the air. I don't theink they ae buried very deep though in
ducts.

But it costs so much to run HV cable underground that most of the run
will be overhead.

MB wrote:

> I thought it was just a development model and not going into production.

They're building 200, at €/£/$/? 250,000 each.
How many problems will theydiscover in such a small run?

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 18/12/2022 10:12, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> Yes. One possible advantage of HVDC cable is that it can be buried
>> underground. Which makes it a harder target for drone/missile attack. As
>> well as leaving the surface area useable for other purposes. Cost more to
>> install, of course.
>
>
>
> I can't remember the figures but on a HV course we were told the
> equivalent in tons TNT to a HV cable. There is potentially going to be
> big bang!
>
> The route of the cables are clearly marked and probably not difficult to
> detect from the air. I don't theink they ae buried very deep though in
> ducts.
>
> But it costs so much to run HV cable underground that most of the run
> will be overhead.
>
>
I’m wondering if underground very HV cables are that expensive these days.
The one recently installed in one of the channel tunnel running tunnels was
essentially hung off a row of brackets. No special cooling or anything. We
seem to be able to bury high pressure gas pipes, and a big 2 foot diameter
water main was being put in near us recently. We also have underground fuel
distribution pipelines. Perhaps we carry on with pylons because it’s always
been done like that.

On 18/12/2022 10:21, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>> And a fire risk if any part of the car gets dented and the damage to one
>> of the solar panels results in a short circuit.
>
> Fortunately, petrol/diesel cars never catch fire in a collision....
> erm....

Its not the solar panels that are necessarily the main risk in a major
crash of a EV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQZ6lTefEYs

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 18/12/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> It should be no surprise that early examples of a tchnology should be
> costly and have limited performance. But as time passes, things get
> improved in performance and tend to fall in cost as their market size
> expands. This is now starting to happen.

When I was still at work I had to sit through an hour long presentation
on modern slavery and how the legislation would be applied to UK (and
EU) companies. Basically if a company was aware that the components it
buys in were obtained by slavery anywhere in the supply chain then they
were equally guilty. The definition of modern slavery wasn't limited to
enslaving people in Africa and transferring them to the new world where
they worked without payment!

If it is already known that mining of lithium involves unfair
exploitation of the workers could all the EV companies be guilty of
breaking modern slavery legislation if they sell EVs in the UK?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> The world can probably do without another Elon Musk-alike
>
> Indeed. Have you watched the programme?

I have, perhaps I nodded-off for some of it, it took its time to get anywhere
near the lightyear car, half an hour of frogs legs, motors made from AA
batteries, stacks of 2p/10p coins.

> It should be no surprise that early examples of a tchnology should be
> costly and have limited performance. But as time passes, things get
> improved in performance and tend to fall in cost as their market size
> expands. This is now starting to happen.

I still don't see much point in carting small PV panels around, they're poor
enough efficency in this country without parking them under trees, or in
multi-storey car parks

The sort of people who can spend 1/4 million on a car, don't tend to drive under
6,000 miles a year.

On 19/12/2022 17:53, Andy Burns wrote:
> The sort of people who can spend 1/4 million on a car, don't tend to drive under
> 6,000 miles a year.

Not so sure about that, it is being seen in the car that matters.

On 19/12/2022 14:32, alan_m wrote:
>
> If it is already known that mining of lithium involves unfair
> exploitation of the workers could all the EV companies be guilty of
> breaking modern slavery legislation if they sell EVs in the UK?

Why single out EVs? Lithium batteries are in all sorts of things
besides EVs, this laptop I'm typing on, for example. Yes, we need to
prevent modern slavery, but equally across the board.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk